> On May 12, 2019, at 9:34 AM, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Hiya, > > (With homenet co-chair hat on...) > > On 12/05/2019 07:33, Dave Taht wrote: >> To avoid howling >> here I'll skip mentioning the dozens I have on my list, and just pick >> on one that I was present at the founding of, homenet. >> >> Market forces have completely shifted out from under that working >> group. No serious vendor >> support ever appeared. The vendors most affected, never showed up. >> Specs exist, but code doesn't. There was a very good preso on all this >> at homenet 104. > > Yes, homenet WG participants have handled these issues > explicitly and (I think) very well, so describing this > one a zombie would be incorrect. Rather, it's a WG whose > participants are trying to address and not ignore the > issue of how relevant the planned work continues to be. Yes, I think this is a great case (and I participated in some of the discussion that Barbara kicked off at the microphone, I think it was in BKK). I gave my feedback there and hopefully it’s still resonating about the simplicity of supporting the technology we deploy. > >> The members of that working group hummed >> overwhelmingly to recharter at ietf 104. > > The people in the room hummed that way yes. My co-chair > recently started the discussion on the list to try to > confirm or refute that conclusion. (Personally I think > hums like that are likely to be a bit too positive for > "do something" so I figure this needs more than just > not disagreeing with that hum on the list.) > > It'd be great if interested folks got involved in the > discussion on the homenet list. > > On the general points: I'd be for reducing the number > of WGs that have formal sessions at IETF f2f meetings. > I'm not fussed about the overall number of WGs that > appear to exist - I'm fine if the IESG handle that > however they want. I'd not be in favour of reducing > the scope of the IETF in terms of the breadth of topics > that are considered in-scope. I see some Was doing lots of interims on the announce list, perhaps it’s better to do this as it levels the playing field and perhaps moves the work forward faster as well. - Jared
